Ex Parte King et al - Page 11

            Appeal Number: 2006-1385                                                                          
            Application Number: 10/452,753                                                                    

                We turn next to claim 7.  Appellants assert (Br. 9) that Shridhara and Beesley                
            do not teach maintaining satellite positioning system receiver signal gain during                 
            blanking.  We agree.  From our review of Shridhara and Beesley, we find no                        
            suggestion for maintaining satellite positioning system receiver signal gain during               
            blanking.  We conclude that the prior art fails to establish a prima facie case of                
            obviousness of claim 7.  Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7                  
            under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley.                    
                We turn next to claim 8.  Appellants provide no specific arguments regarding                  
            this claim, but generally argue that Shridhara and Beesley do not disclose the                    
            claimed features.  From our review of the record, we find that Shridhara discloses                
            storing a satellite positioning system correlator output signal and detecting the                 
            presence of a jamming signal in the satellite positioning system receiver by                      
            analyzing the stored information (col. 4, ll. 39-43).  Therefore, we are in agreement             
            with the Examiner that the teachings of Shridhara would have suggested to an                      
            artisan the invention set forth in claim 8.                                                       
                For the lack of any specific arguments by Appellants, and our agreement with                  
            the Examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of any error in the part of the                     
            Examiner regarding the rejection of claim 8.  Accordingly, the rejection of claim 8               
            under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shridhara in view of Beesley is                  
            sustained.                                                                                        
                We turn next to claim 9, which depends from claim 8.  Appellants assert (Br.                  
            10) that none of the references analyze a stored correlator output signal to identify             
            a characteristic of a jamming signal and synchronize the blanking signal with the                 
            jamming signal based on the identified characteristic.  We agree.  From our review                
            of Shridhara and Beesley, we find no suggestion for identifying a characteristic of               

                                                     11                                                       


Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013